Click here to send us Questions or
Comments

Copyright © 1997-2006
High
Top Media
All
Rights Reserved.

Legal
Notices

For July-August 2004
Volume 7 Number 3

Chronology of the Exodus and the Israelite Conquest of Canaan

In
this two part series biblical historian Richard Paige shows how the
archaeological data can be explained.

by
Richard H. Paige

[ Part I 13th or 15th century? ]

PART II
The Conquest of Canaan

The problem of matching the biblical account and the available
archaeological evidence is complicated by the fact that it has proved
impossible to associate the destructions of Hazor, Bethel (if one accepts
that it is Beitin) and Lachish (all of which were destroyed in the 13th
century B.C.E.) with the work of one man (Joshua), as the Bible
maintains.

Multiple-conquest
theories

Albright originally dated the destruction of Beitin to 1299,
while the date for the 13th-century destruction of Lachish was originally
set at 1225, almost 75 years later! But supposedly both were destroyed by
Joshua's invasion. The excavators at Lachish pressured Albright to lower
his date for the destruction of Beitin. While Albright did later agree to
a lowering of his date for the destruction of Beitin (a change he was
never comfortable with) to 1250 B.C.E., this still left a gap of 25 years
between the destruction of Beitin and Lachish, a gap that it was hoped
later evidence would help to close. However, later evidence has made the
gap larger and not smaller!

Lachish is still being excavated (and partially reconstructed).
The latest evidence supports a date of about 1140 for the destruction of
Lachish. This not only produces a gap of at least 110 years (160 years if
one accepts Albright's original date) for the destruction of cities which,
supposedly, were conquered by a coordinated campaign of conquest under the
leadership of one man, but it also places the destruction of one city
(Beitin) far too early and the other (Lachish) far too late for the time
of Joshua.

This has given rise to the theory (embraced by a fair number of
scholars) that there were multiple conquests: separate groups of peoples
moving into Canaan at different times, only later joining into a 12-tribe
confederacy. It has even been suggested the 12 sons of Jacob were
fictitious―that the story was made up because the people divided
themselves into 12 groups, each to take care of the main religious shrine
(the tabernacle at Shiloh) one month a year. There's no evidence for that,
of course, but if you don't believe the Bible is historically reliable,
any speculation is permitted.

Archaeologists
have even had problems when they do find evidence that a city was
destroyed at what they believe to be "the right time." For example, Yigael
Yadin was able to demonstrate that the city of Hazor (Joshua
11:11) was destroyed about 1225 B.C.E. After remaining uninhabited for
about 40 years, there was a settlement of tents and huts (which they
conclude are Israelite), which existed without interruption until
the time of Solomon. Thus, the archaeological evidence indicates that
following its destruction in 1225, there was no further Canaanite
occupation of the city. Judges
4, however, tells us that after Razor's destruction by Joshua, the
Israelites, led by Deborah, fought against Jabin, the Canaanite king of
Hazor. In order to reconcile this discrepancy, two Israeli scholars
(Aharoni and Avi-Yonah) have gone so far as to suggest a separate invasion
by Hebrews led by Deborah before the time of Joshua!

The Book of Judges

As if this is not confusion enough, one also needs to consider
the implications of accepting a 13th century B.C.E. date for the Israelite
Conquest on the chronology of the Book of Judges. This book contains
narrative material from the time of Joshua's death to the time of Saul,
about 1050. However, if the Conquest was in 1225 B.C.E., as most
modem-critical scholars would have it, Joshua would have died about 1200,
and all the events of Judges have to be squeezed into 150 years.

It is generally agreed that the Israelites' struggle with the
Philistines began around 1100 or 1125. So everything before Samson would
have to be compressed into 100 years or less. Such a "compression"
of the events distorts the whole structure of the Book of Judges.

A modem-critical scholar might say that the figure of
300 years given by Jephthah (Judges
11:26) was achieved by rounding or was the unreliable guess of an
ill-informed individual, but to reduce it to only 75-100 years (as is
required by a 13th century B.C.E. date) makes it impossible to accommodate
all the events contained in chapters 1-10 of the Book of Judges.

The infiltration
theory

Finally, the Bible states that the Canaanites lived in
impressive walled cities (Numbers
13:28). Rifka Gonen (of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem), however,
has demonstrated that the Late Bronze Age was one of the least
urbanized in the history of Canaan. Following the destruction of the
cities at the end of the Middle Bronze Age (and some destruction at the
end of the Late Bronze 1), 63 percent of the cities remained
uninhabited for at least part of the Late Bronze period. In the hill
country, where Joshua's campaign centered, 95 percent of the cities
existing at the end of the Middle Bronze Age were uninhabited. Of the few
cities that were resettled, most were unfortified: without any
walls at all!

How can we reconcile that archaeological finding, - which we
have no reason to doubt, with the spies' mention of the heavily fortified
cities?

Yadin wrote about the "basic historicity" of the biblical
accounts of the Conquest. How can one suggest any kind of historicity for
the biblical accounts with all of these major discrepancies with the
archaeological evidence? How can one attempt to maintain that there is an
agreement between the biblical accounts and the archaeological evidence if
the specifics of the biblical accounts are discounted? The truth is, there
is no agreement between the two at all!

So where do we stand with the attempt to reconcile the
archaeological evidence and the biblical record? James Pritchard, in a
book about his excavation at Gibeon, looked at the archaeological evidence
of Jericho, Ai and Gibeon, and commented: "It suggests that we have
reached an impasse on the question of supporting the...conquest with
archaeological under girding."

Yes, the archaeologists are at an impasse. They concluded that
there is no archaeological support for a Conquest in the 15th century.
They then claimed that the archaeological evidence was better for a
13th-century date. However, on closer examination, the evidence for the
13th-century date is not any better. These problems have led some
archaeologists and biblical historians to state that there is no support
for the biblical accounts of the Conquest anywhere between the 15th and
the 12th century B.C.E.!

As a result, there has been a major movement away from the
theories about a military conquest of Canaan by a large number of
outsiders in favor of a modification of a theory originally presented by
George Mendenhall about 30 years ago. Largely the work of Norman Gottwald
(a sociologist who is neither an archaeologist nor a biblical scholar),
this theory postulates that before, or about the same time as, the
Israelite incursion into Canaan, there was a revolt by Canaanite peasants
against their feudal Canaanite overlords that resulted in the destruction
of most of the cities in Canaan (especially in the central hill country).
The cities that remained (or revived) were primarily in the coastal plain,
the Shephelah, the borders of the Jezreel Valley and the northern
Galilee.

According to the theory, the liberated peasants, after their
successful revolt, not willing to risk being forced back into serfdom by
their former overlords, fled to the central hill country, where they
amalgamated with the small number of Hebrews who had peacefully
infiltrated that region after the destruction of the strong Canaanite
centers by the rebels. Although they outnumbered the Hebrew newcomers,
these Canaanite rebels, outcasts from their own political and social
system, pledged themselves to accept the Hebrew God when they joined with
the Hebrew newcomers to become a new "nation."

According to this theory, the ceremony at Shechem (Joshua
24:1-15), where all those present pledged themselves to forswear the
"gods of the Amorites" (as well as all other gods), although it has been
"reworked" by later editors to reflect the traditional national
"mythology" of the Exodus from Egypt, still preserves the memory of the
pact made between the Canaanite peasants and the Hebrew immigrants.

After several hundred years of settling down in the largely
unoccupied hill country, the expanding population of this "mixed nation"
(Canaanite in culture and Hebrew in religion) again came into conflict
with the Canaanites living in the remaining urban centers and, in the
process of warring against them, destroyed their cities. It is these later
battles (according to Gottwald and his adherents) that serve as the raw
material for the "battle accounts" that form the core of the Book of
Joshua.

Examining this
theory

Indeed, Rifka Gonen's evidence seems to support this. Between
1400 and 1200, there was a gradual increase in the number of settlements,
accelerating in the period between 1200 and 1000. For example, in the
southern hills of Samaria, there were five settlements at the end of the
Late Bronze Age. At the end of the Iron I period, around the year 1000,
there were 103. They share the same kind of pottery and architecture,
which we identify as Israelite. The first settlements are clustered
between Shechem and Shiloh, then they spread into the Galilee and Judah,
then Beersheba and the Shephelah region (the southwestern foothills).

Although many scholars have become fascinated with Gottwald's
theory, it has not won universal acceptance by any means. This is largely
because of the numerous details preserved in the biblical account―details
that simply could not, and would not, have been made up hundreds of years
later. The Bible records some of the battles of Joshua, battles in which
the Israelites won through divine assistance or by utilizing clever
strategies, not by superior force.

If the Canaanite cities were destroyed only after several
hundred years of "Israelite" settlement, as Gottwald has suggested, the
Israelites would have been so numerous that they would have overwhelmed
the walled cities by virtue of numerical strength. They wouldn't have
invented stories that showed a need to rely on "tricks." [For
details of the military stratagems used, see the excerpts from the article
by Abraham Malamat from the March-April 1982 Biblical Archaeology
Review in the box below.]

Details of a Military
Conquest

An interesting article by
Abraham Malamat entitled “How Inferior Israelite Forces
Conquered Fortified Canaanite Cities,” appeared in the
March-April 1982 Biblical Archaeology Review (Malamat
1982). Malamat's primary expertise is with the period of
the monarchy, with the relationships between the Israelite
kingdoms and Egypt, Assyria and Babylonia. But he turned his
attention to the Israelite Conquest in this article, "How
Inferior Forces Conquered Fortified Canaanite Cities." His
observations suggest that the Israelites were less numerous
than the Canaanites.

"Both the 'infiltration' model
and the 'revolt' model hold some truth. No doubt some peaceful
infiltration and settlement occurred. No doubt there was
dissension and some insurgence in the Canaanite cities, with
some Canaanites even joining forces with the invading
Israelites. Consider, for example, Rahab, the harlot, who let
the Israelites Into Jericho...and the informer from Bethel who
showed the Israelites the way into that city (Judges 1:24-25).

"But there is a third
'model'—the Biblical tradition, per se—that describes
an outright military conquest of Canaan, and this third model
cannot simply be discarded. Without accepting every detail of
the Biblical account, it is nevertheless clear that alongside
a peaceful settlement ... and some unrest and revolt in the
Canaanite cities ... there was Israelite military action which
achieved forceful penetration into Canaan....

"A basic element of Israelite
consciousness Is that Canaan was 'inherited' by force, whether
this force was an act of God or of man. This tenet is like a
leitmotif that runs through the Biblical sources." This theme
is not just in Judges and Joshua but elsewhere in the Bible.
He says, "at the core, a military conquest remains." You have
to accept the fact there was some sort of military
conquest.

The biblical account "reflects
an intimate and authentic knowledge of the land, and a
knowledge of its topography ... and ... military strategy -
which strongly support the conclusion that the settlement of
the Israelites in Canaan was accompanied by substantial
military operations."

Let's look at a few examples of
how the topography affected the battles. The way of Atharim
(the Scorpion's Pass), the way that the spies went up to
investigate Canaan, is a significant route into the southern
region. The Israelites' presence near southern Canaan upset
the king of Arad, since his job was, so to speak, to guard the
southern portions of the country. So he attacked and was
defeated. The Israelites then went east, passing around the
land of Edom and Moab.

The Canaanites did not try to
stop the Israelites from crossing the Jordan River, despite
the fact that it could be crossed in only a few places. These
fords were guarded at other times, such as in the time of
Gideon or the time of Jephthah. But the Canaanites took no
such action. That's because the Canaanites were divided into
mutually suspicious city-states. They were not in the habit of
taking joint action.

We also find that the Israelites conquered the hill
country first; they did not conquer the lands where chariots
could be used (Joshua 17:16, Judges 1:19). If the account had
been written hundreds of. years later, when Israel had already
conquered those areas, it never would have occurred to the
writer that they had ever had such a difficulty; thus, the
account reflects historical reality.

Notice also the importance of Gilgal, where the
Israelites camped after crossing the Jordan (Joshua 4:19).
After defending Gibeon, they returned to Gilgal (Joshua
10:15). After conquering the southern cities, they returned to
the camp at Gilgal (verse 43). Gilgal is a logical place for a
base camp - near the Jordan, near the women and children who
lived in the areas the Israelites had conquered east of the
Jordan.

The Bible also. mentions military stratagems. For
example, the use of spies for the whole land (Numbers 13), for
Jazer (Numbers 21:32), Jericho (Joshua 2:1) and All (Joshua
7:2). "Even if Israel was not unique in its employment of
stratagems in warfare, no other literature of the ancient Near
East equals the books of Joshua and Judges in the number and
variety of battle stratagems described."

There are only two cases where Israel directly faced a
large number of Canaanites. Other cities either had no troops
left to defend them or a stratagem was used. For example, in
the case of Ai the Israelites fled, pretending to be afraid.
The men of Ai chased the Israelites down a narrow valley,
leaving Ai defenseless. A small force destroyed the city. Then
the Israelites who were pretending to flee stopped running
away and began to fight; so the men of Ai ended up being
trapped in the valley between the two Israelite
forces.

However, when Israel defended Gibeon against its
Canaanite neighbors, the Israelites faced a numerically
superior force. They won largely because they used a surprise
attack. "Joshua therefore came upon them suddenly, having
marched all night from Gilgal" (Joshua 10:9). This was about
20 miles and about 3,000 feet higher in elevation. They
arrived near daybreak. Verse 12 tells us that the sun was over
Gibeon, to their east. The Canaanites, not mentally prepared
for this, panicked and fled.

They were helpless as long as they were in a state of
panic. God not only lengthened the day, he also sent down huge
hailstones to kill the fleeing Canaanites. Success came
through the combination of valid military tactics and divine
intervention.

Another frontal assault against a larger Canaanite
force took place at the waters of Merom in northern Canaan
(Joshua 11). Again, the account mentions the matter of
surprise. "Joshua and all the people of war with him came
against them suddenly by the waters of Merom, and they
attacked them" (verse 7). Again, the Israelites pursued the
panic-stricken enemy relentlessly. The numerically superior
Canaanite force was defeated - in a state of panic, even a
large army is helpless.

If archaeologists and biblical historians have reached an
impasse that is so great as to prompt many to accept the kind of theory
proposed by Norman Gottwald (which makes a "hash" out of the Book of
Joshua, the patriarchal narratives, the Exodus and the wilderness
wanderings), where does it leave us?

We still believe in the historical accuracy of the biblical
account. But can this belief be defended in a rational way, or do we
simply have to say it's just a matter of faith? I think it can be defended
in a rational way.

Can a 15th century
B.C.E. date be defended?

What has been the response of conservative scholars to this
"flood" of archaeological evidence that seems to contradict the biblical
accounts of the Exodus and the Israelite Conquest? Have they simply chosen
to ignore this "evidence" and maintain a simplistic faith in the integrity
of I
Kings 6:1? No. They have been very active in defense of the
traditional 15th-century date of the Exodus and the Israelite Conquest.
Let's take another look at the claims of the modern-critical scholars and
consider how they can be satisfactorily answered.

First, let's consider I
Kings 6:1. The modem-critical scholars claim that the number 480,
while reflecting that there were 12 generations between the Exodus and
Solomon, is in error because the presumed 40 years per generation is
unrealistic. I think we can admit that 25 years is a more realistic number
for the time between the birth of one generation and the next. However,
that need not lead inevitably to the conclusion reached by many
modern-critical scholars.

The modern-critical scholars suggest that the writer of I Kings
knew there had been 12 generations between the Exodus and Solomon on the
basis of I
Chronicles 6:4-10, which they say indicates that there were 12
generations of priests from the time of the Exodus generation (Eleazar)
until the time of Zadok's grandson (not great great-grandson)
Azariah, who, along with his grandfather and father, began to serve in
Solomon's temple.

However, if we
look at the genealogy of Heman the singer in I
Chronicles 6:33-37, we find that it lists not 12, but 19
generations from the time of Solomon back to the Exodus generation.
Apparently the genealogy of the priests has been shortened; some names'
have been omitted. Perhaps it was done to present a symmetrical pattern of
two sets of 12 generations. The first set runs from Eleazar, the Exodus
generation, through Azariah, the generation that saw the foundation of
Solomon's temple. Then there are 12 generations from Azariah to Joshua the
son of Jehozadak, who saw the founding of the Second Temple.

The fact that a similar thing was done in Matthew's genealogy
of Christ lends support to this idea. We can't test the accuracy of the
whole genealogy, but we do have a record of the kings of Judah, and we
know that Matthew omitted four kings in his list of the ancestors of
Joseph: Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah and Jehoiachim. Generations were skipped,
creating a symmetry: 14 generations from Abraham to David, 14 generations
from David to the captivity and 14 generations from the captivity to
Christ. It is without question a shortened genealogy, not a literal one.
The list says one man begat another, but it wasn't meant to be taken
literally; it simply meant he was an ancestor. While we might not write
history that way, they didn't see anything wrong with it. We have to
accept the literature in the way they wrote then.

So we can see from this biblical example that genealogical
lists aren't always complete. Some names might be missing.

What then about the 19 generations of singers mentioned in I
Chronicles 6? Since the genealogy of the priests may have been
shortened to create a symmetry, the genealogy of the singers is most
likely the one that is complete. Isn't it interesting that if we use the
modern critical scholars' figure of 25 years per generation, this gives us
about 475 years between the Exodus and Solomon? Thus the Bible again
indicates it was about 480 years between the Exodus and Solomon.

Re-examination of
Egyptian evidence

Let's look at the matter of Moses' adoption. The critics
suggest that Moses was born during the early years of the 19th dynasty.
But all the throne princesses of that dynasty had an abundance of royal
sons, making it very unlikely that a throne princess would risk the strong
social disapproval involved in adopting a Hebrew child.

In contrast, Hatshepsut not only lacked a son, but she is also
known to have had a very independent spirit, strong enough to make herself
Pharaoh. Having an adopted son who could be the heir to the throne may
explain why she seized the throne―to prevent Thutmose II from assuming
power. Another fact that fits is that Thutmose III seized the throne from
Hatshepsut about the time when Moses would have been 40. And since
Thutmose III tried to destroy every mention of Hatshepsut on the monuments
of Egypt (you can still see where he ordered her names erased on many of
them today), we wouldn't expect to find any records of her adopted
son.

The Amarna tablets don't support either date, since the
Apiru could have been any group. If we, for other good reasons,
know that the Israelites invaded Canaan about 1400 B.C.E., then the
Apiru mentioned in the letters would probably refer to them. But by
themselves the letters are not proof.

What about the capital of the 18th dynasty being 400 miles
away? Though the capital may have been so far away, the pharaohs of the
18th dynasty did spend time in Lower Egypt, and began construction
projects there. Thutmose III appointed a vizier for his capital at Thebes
and one for the Delta, at the old northern capital, Memphis. So he could
have been the pharaoh who put the Israelites to hard labor. Amenhotep II,
whom various believe to be the Pharaoh of the Exodus, was born in Memphis,
and seems to have had extensive estates there. The pharaoh could have been
close to Goshen occasionally, making Moses' communication job
possible.

What about the fact that Seti I (1300 B.C.E.) and Rameses
(1290) don't mention Israel even though they campaigned in Canaan? And
that the Bible doesn't mention either of these campaigns? Well, the Bible
doesn't mention Merneptah's campaign in the year 1225, either. The
pharaohs didn't go into the hill country where the Israelites lived. The
Book of Judges is a record of how God punished the Israelites when they
forsook God. The pharaohs' campaigns were not mentioned by the author(s)
of the Book of Judges because the Egyptians were not used by God as an
instrument to punish Israel.

The land of Rameses

What about the lack of remains from the 15th century B.C.E.
under the city built by Rameses II? It is true that there are no earlier
remains under Rameses' city (modern Qantir). In the 17th century B.C.E.,
it was the capital of the Hyksos. They were thrown out of Egypt about 1550
by the pharaoh who may have begun the enslavement of the Israelites. The
city then remained uninhabited from 1550 to the 1200s.

However, just south of Rameses' later city (at Tel el-Daba),
there are remains from the 18th dynasty, the 15th century. The people who
lived there were apparently Semitic and thus could have been
Israelites. It would not be surprising that the area the Israelites
had lived in would be referred to by the better-known name Rameses even if
the new city wasn't built exactly on top of the old.

Genesis
47:11 says that Joseph situated his family "in the land of Rameses."
Joseph lived much earlier than the 13th century. So how could he mention
the name of Rameses? Scholars agree that Joseph probably used another
name, but the old name had fallen out of use after Rameses made the area
famous with his own name. So an editor used the name that would have been
understood. Another example of such editorial updating is the mention of
Dan in Genesis
14.

The attempt to associate the period of Israelite slavery in
Egypt with the pharaohs of the 19th dynasty (13th century B.C.E.) presents
other difficulties. The 13th century B.C.E. city of Rameses was a capital,
not a store city (Exodus
1:11). Also, if Rameses II was the Pharaoh of the Oppression (the one
who put the Israelites to forced labor on his building projects), the
Pharaoh of the Exodus would have to have been his successor, Merneptah―but
Merneptah found the Israelites living in Canaan in the fifth year of his
reign! Thus there are serious problems if one tries to associate the 13th
century pharaohs and the biblical record.

Edom, Moab, Heshbon and
Dibon

Let's look at the evidence presented by Nelson Glueck in his
survey in Edom and Moab. Glueck wrote that the biblical account could not
represent a 15th century reality because Edom and Moab were uninhabited at
that time. While this conclusion still appears in the literature dealing
with the question of the date of the Exodus (even in articles written in
the 1980s by authors who chose not to include the latest evidence), Glueck
himself wrote in 1974 that his conclusion had been wrong.

Glueck examined surface finds; he did not excavate. You cannot
prove lack of population from a survey. Many periods of occupation
may be overlooked. In the 1960s and 1970s a number of other surveys, more
thorough than Glueck's, were done in Edom and Moab. They found that
there was a settled population there in the 15th century, although
it was not a large one. Now modem-critical scholars write that the
15th-century population was too small to have forced Israel to have gone
around their national territories as is described in the biblical
accounts.

However, the Bible doesn't say that Israel went around because
Edom and Moab were more populous. In fact, Deuteronomy
2:4 comments that Edom and Moab would be afraid of Israel. God told
the Israelites to go around them because the land belonged to Edom and
Moab (verses
5, 9,
19).
The implication is that the Israelites could have overwhelmed the people
of Edom and Moab. So the archaeological evidence does not contradict the
Bible.

Numbers
21:21-30 mentions that the Israelites conquered the cities of Heshbon
and Dibon. Archaeologists excavated at the villages of Diban and Hesban
and found the ancient capital cities of Heshbon and Dibon. But those
cities were founded on virgin soil in the ninth century B.C.E.; there was
nothing there in the 15th century B.C.E. So the modern-critical scholars
say the biblical text is wrong. What I find very interesting is that when
these same scholars find evidence in secular historical records that seems
to contradict the archaeological evidence, they don't say the historical
records are wrong. They just say we don't have a complete archaeological
picture yet.

The city of Dibon, as it turns out, is mentioned in secular
history―in the 15th century and in the 13th. Thutmose III and Rameses II
both recorded conquests of the city of Dibon. So archaeologists say the
city, though not at the exact site of the modern Arab village of Diban,
was nearby. Why can't we use the same standard when we are dealing with
the biblical text? Why is it unacceptable to state that the sites of the
15th-century cities of Dibon and Heshbon haven't been found yet?

The general point is this: There is nothing in the
archaeological picture in Egypt or east of the Jordan that would forbid a
15th-century date. The evidence is not as damaging to the biblical account
as it first seemed.

The problem of Ai

Now let's look at the cities that Joshua conquered and
destroyed. How can we explain the archaeological evidence that says the
cities were not destroyed in the 15th century? What about the
non-existence of Ai? Ai is thought to be at a site known as et-Tell, which
means "the ruin." It is near a site known as Beitin, which is presumed by
most to be the site of Bethel.

Geographically, this makes very little sense. David Livingston
has shown that the geographical information provided in the Bible about Ai
and Bethel do not match the geographical factors of et-Tell and Beitin.
Though most people still do not accept his conclusion, I think it is very
well founded.

The Bible indicates that Bethel and Ai were quite close, but
Beitin and et-Tell are not that close. Eusebius mentions that Bethel was
almost exactly at the 12th mile marker north of Jerusalem. But Beitin
isn't 12 miles north of Jerusalem. Other geographical information seems to
indicate that Bethel was on the main north-south route from Jerusalem to
Shechem. Beitin is not. The Bible says that Bethel was on the border
between Judah and Israel. But Beitin is north of the other border areas.
Also, Abraham camped on a mountain between Bethel and Ai. There is no
mountain between Beitin and et-Tell. The Bible says that Ai and Bethel
were west of Michmash (not necessarily due west, since Hebrew has no word
for northwest). Et-Tell is almost due north, only slightly west.

Bireh, though, does lie on the natural geographic border
between Benjamin and Ephraim. It's on the main highway about 12 miles
north of Jerusalem. There's a mountain near Bireh; on the other side of
the mountain, 1 1/2 kilometers southeast, is a ruin at Khirbet Nisya.
Khirbet Nisya is west, and only slightly north, of Michmash. The geography
near Khirbet Nisya matches the details given in the battle of Ai, unlike
et-Tell (though some scholars would make the claim that et-Tell does match
satisfactorily).

Livingston is excavating at Khirbet Nisya. So far the evidence
is encouraging but it is not yet conclusive. Even if Khirbet Nisya is not
the correct site for Ai, it is clear that et-Tell is not.

What about the cultural
break?

One of the most-often-used arguments in favor of a 13th-century
Conquest is the cultural break between the Late Bronze II and the Iron
Age. The cultural break is presumed to have come from a destruction of one
people by the invasion of another. It is assumed that the Conquest would
create a cultural break. However, it's becoming known that the cultural
break was not abrupt―the Late Bronze culture simply tapered off and the
Iron Age culture gradually replaced it, with some overlap between the two.
This violates the concept of archaeological periods, that one ends and the
next begins. The idea of overlap in the archaeological sequence has not
been admitted before. But it is becoming apparent that it took place.

Moreover, just because a new culture is introduced does not
mean that it was introduced by new ethnic groups. Most Iron Age forms are
actually developments of Late Bronze ones it was an evolutionary change,
not a revolutionary one.

The Iron Age inhabitants of Canaan are clearly Israelite. But
they could have been there earlier and participated in the transition from
Late Bronze to Iron Age. After all, the change to Iron Age happened
throughout the eastern Mediterranean coast. "The shift from the richness
of the Late Bronze Age to the apparent [notice the qualification] poverty
of early Iron I is a phenomenon which extends into the whole of Canaanite
and Eastern Mediterranean culture and not just that section affected by
the Hebrews" (Bikai
1980:214).

Israel wasn't responsible for all the changes, so we can't
presume they were uniquely responsible for it in Canaan. It makes more
sense to view Israel as just one of many peoples in the area going through
a cultural change. In fact, the Bible suggests that the Israelites were
culturally behind the times―for a while, the only smiths were the
Philistines (Joshua
17:16, I
Samuel 14:19-20).

What about the
non-existent cities?

The Bible says many cities were destroyed in the Conquest;
archaeology says most were not destroyed in the 13th or the 15th
centuries. In many cases, the cities were uninhabited during the Late
Bronze Age.

Perhaps, then, we are looking in the wrong time period. Let's
look at the end of the Middle Bronze Age. Did Jericho exist? Yes.
Gibeon yes, Hebron yes. Hormah yes, the smaller Arad yes. Debir, Lachish,
Hazor, Beitin and Bireh all yes. Et-Tell, no, but Khirbet Nisya, yes.

Were these Middle Bronze cities surrounded by a wall? Yes for
Jericho, Hebron, Hormah, the smaller Arad, Lachish and Hazor. We don't
know yet for Birch and Khirbet Nisya. At Gibeon none was discovered. Were
these cities destroyed at the end of the Middle Bronze? Yes, most were.
Again, there's generally a good match.

Now, why are we looking at the end of the Middle Bronze
Age isn't that too early for the Exodus? Isn't the 15th century in the
Late Bronze Age? Perhaps the picture is more complicated than it
appears.

Canaanite cities destroyed at end of Middle
Bronze Age?

Much of the chronological framework depends on the dating of
various pottery forms. Some types of pottery are associated with a
particular date based on an early excavation. Other researchers then
applied that date to their own excavations. Even though the original work
may have been faulty, the date has become widely used.

Kathleen Kenyon had concluded that Jericho was destroyed about
1550 (the end of the Middle Bronze Age), based on the absence of bichrome
pottery in the destruction. John Bimson, an English scholar notes
that bichromeware "was quite limited. It does not seem to have spread
appreciably into the highland regions of central Palestine, let alone as
far as the Jordan Valley.... If its use never extended appreciably beyond
the coastal plain, then its non-appearance at Jericho can obviously not be
taken to imply abandonment of the city.... I submit, therefore, that
MBA Jericho actually came to an end in the second half of the 15th century
BC, and that its attackers were the Israelites as recorded in Joshua 1:6"
(Bimson
1981:133-135).

He notes that the city labeled by Kathleen Kenyon as Middle
Bronze was heavily fortified, and destroyed by fire. "Kenyon writes:
'...All the Middle Bronze Age buildings were violently destroyed by
fire.... This destruction covers the whole area.... Walls and floors are
hardened and blackened, burnt debris and beams from the upper storeys fill
the rooms, and the whole is covered by a wash from burnt walls.'... We are
forcibly reminded of the fact that Joshua had Jericho burnt to the ground
after he had taken it (Joshua 6:24)" (Bimson
1981:120-121).

Although Bimson is almost certainly right about these matters,
he does err (as far as I can see) by attempting to move the date for the
end of the Middle Bronze Age down to the last part of the 15th century
B.C.E. in order that it will more closely accord with the biblical
chronology suggested by I
Kings 6:1 and Judges
11:26. The answer, I believe, does not lie in this direction. Rather,
I believe the work done by Bryant Wood is more likely to have shown the
correct answer to the problem.

Dr. Wood has (in my opinion) convincingly demonstrated at two
conferences I have attended ("Who was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?"―Memphis,
Tennessee, spring 1987, and the Society of Biblical Literature/ American
Schools of Oriental Research annual meeting, Boston, November 1988) that
Kathleen Kenyon erred in her conclusions and that John Garstang (who
excavated at Jericho in the 1930s) was correct. The occupation level with
the massive walls (so thoroughly destroyed that nothing but the stumps of
the walls were left) that was subjected to the tremendous fire noted by
Kenyon should be dated to about.1400 B.C.E. (the end of Late Bronze I) and
not 1550 B.C.E. (the end of the Middle Bronze Age).

Dr. Wood demonstrated that with the exception of imported
bichromeware, all the major pottery forms found in this massive
destruction of Jericho were identical to forms found in the 15th
century B.C.E. destruction level of Hazor. This destruction level of Hazor
is well documented and its date (about 1400 B.C.E.) is accepted by all
scholars. Since all local pottery forms were identical, it follows that
the two cities were destroyed at the same time―the end of the Late Bronze
I (about 1400 B.C.E.).

Conclusion

It's quite possible that when the Israelites came into Canaan,
some cities were using only pottery typical of the end of the Middle
Bronze Age while a few "trendsetters," especially cities on trade routes,
were introducing the new imported bichromeware, which is currently still
accepted as the hallmark of the Late Bronze Age.

Scholars have already admitted that the transition from Late
Bronze to Iron had some overlap. And they've been forced to admit that
eighth-century Samaria used a different kind of pottery than
eighth-century Lachish.

In the time of Joshua, then, some cities may have been using
pottery generally characterized as belonging to the Middle Bronze (since
bichromeware is missing) at the same time other cities may have
been using pottery characteristic of the Late Bronze Age. Archaeological
dating methods are not as precise as scholars sometimes assume them to be.
The evidence isn't conclusive enough; the scholars' conclusions aren't so
airtight that they prove the biblical account wrong.

On the other hand, however, we cannot prove the Bible by
archaeology―we don't have enough evidence. We can explain the evidence
if we assume the Bible to be true, but we can't use the evidence to prove
the Bible. Nor do we need to.

This article, specially edited and reformatted
for BibArchTM, was first published by The
Worldwide Church of God under the
title "Ancient Israel: Chronology of the Exodus and the Israelite
Conquest of Canaan" in Reviews You Can Use (Paige
1989) and used with permission.

Page last edited: 02/03/05
05:45
PM

Does the national archive and treasury of the kings
of Judah lie hidden deep underground in the ancient City of
David?

Limited
edition. Our price $18.95. The tomb of King David has been
lost since the days of Herod the Great. Have archaeologists
and historians now isolated its location? New research
suggests the tomb, and a national archive and treasury
containing unbelievable wealth, lies not far south of the
Haram esh-Sharif.

What was Jerusalem in the days of Herod and Jesus
really like?

A bold and
daring Temple analysis. Our price $22.45. Tradition
places Herod's Temple on the Haram esh-Sharif. Is this really
the site of the Temple in Jesus' day? A new carefully detailed
compilation and analysis of the historical evidence says --
absolutely not!

View
Temple Video

The Old City of
Jerusalem

Our most popular map. Only $9.95. This small
sample section of a beautiful map from the Survey of Israel,
suitable for framing, is a must for serious students of the
Bible.

Thank you for visiting
BIBARCH™
Please Visit Our Site
Often

Rated in
the
Top 10% of Websites
by
WebsMostLinked

Rated Outstanding
and starting
web/internet resource by the

Chosen by
librarians at O'Keefe Library, St. Ambrose University, for inclusion
in The
Best Information on the Net.